ATI Radeon HD 5770 vs RX Vega 11

Place in the ranking	614	670
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.89
Power efficiency	10.80	2.83
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Raven	Juniper
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	10 May 2018 (6 years ago)	13 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	704	800
Core clock speed	300 MHz	850 MHz
Boost clock speed	1251 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,940 million	1,040 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	108 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.04	34.00
Floating-point processing power	1.761 TFLOPS	1.36 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	44	40

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	208 mm
Width	IGP	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	4800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	76.8 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	Motherboard Dependent	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.7 (6.4)	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX Vega 11 5.42
+23.7%

ATI HD 5770 4.38

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RX Vega 11 2109
+23.7%

ATI HD 5770 1705

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

RX Vega 11 5483
+128%

ATI HD 5770 2410

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p	27−30 +12.5%	24 −12.5%
Full HD	28 −75%	49 +75%
1440p	5 +25%	4−5 −25%
4K	12 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	3.24
1440p	no data	39.75
4K	no data	17.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	20 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Metro Exodus	18 +80%	10−11 −80%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Valorant	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Dota 2	27 +92.9%	14−16 −92.9%
Far Cry 5	30 +36.4%	21−24 −36.4%
Fortnite	30−35 +23.1%	24−27 −23.1%
Forza Horizon 4	17 −11.8%	18−20 +11.8%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 +21.4%	14−16 −21.4%
Metro Exodus	11 +10%	10−11 −10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	54 +42.1%	35−40 −42.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Valorant	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%
World of Tanks	85−90 +18.9%	70−75 −18.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Dota 2	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +18.2%	21−24 −18.2%
Forza Horizon 4	15 −26.7%	18−20 +26.7%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +21.1%	35−40 −21.1%
Valorant	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +17.2%	27−30 −17.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
World of Tanks	35−40 +21.9%	30−35 −21.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Valorant	14−16 +15.4%	12−14 −15.4%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	15 +15.4%	12−14 −15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	17 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Fortnite	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Valorant	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%

This is how RX Vega 11 and ATI HD 5770 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 11 is 13% faster in 900p
ATI HD 5770 is 75% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 11 is 25% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 11 is 33% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 11 is 200% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 5770 is 27% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 11 is ahead in 55 tests (89%)
ATI HD 5770 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.42	4.38
Recency	10 May 2018	13 October 2009
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	108 Watt

RX Vega 11 has a 23.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 208.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 11 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5770 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.